Chapter 13 Notes: Royal Power and Overseas Expansion, 1450-1540
Overview: The chapter examines how competing Iberian monarchies (Portugal, Castile, Aragon) used and shaped overseas exploration, trade, and conquest between 1450 and 1540, and how rulers in Africa (Benin, Kongo) and India (Calicut) interacted with European powers. Rivalries at home (within Europe) and abroad (with non-European polities) shaped voyages, alliances, treaties, and the nature of early global exchange. The chapter emphasizes that royal decisions, court perceptions, and diplomatic-legal instruments were central to these processes, not just private enterprise or geographic luck.
Central questions the chapter asks you to answer from the sources:
How did rivalries among Portugal, Castile, and Aragon affect exploration, trade, and conquest in Africa and India?
How did rulers’ decisions and actions shape voyages, treaties, and outcomes? How did rulers of Benin, Kongo, and Calicut interact with European powers?
What perceptions about rulers across seas were conveyed in written documents, and how might those perceptions have influenced attitudes and actions?
How did the circulation and audience of documents (open letters, decrees, chronicles) shape European understanding of African and Indian rulers?
The key takeaway: Rivalries and perceptions, expressed through a mix of chronicles, royal decrees, and letters, drove the patterns of early Atlantic and Indian Ocean exploration and laid groundwork for later colonial dynamics. European power grew not only from technology and ships but from diplomatic maneuvering, legal controls, and selective storytelling about foreign rulers.
Three types of sources used in the chapter:
Chronicles and other historical accounts written by Europeans involved in overseas ventures
Royal decrees and official orders issued by monarchs
Letters to and from rulers, including correspondence with African and Indian kings
Note: All sources are public to some degree; printing and open-letter conventions affected how they circulated and who read them.
Three core analytical tasks when using these sources:
Trace rivalries (who wanted what, wealth vs. power) and how they produced actions (voyages, wars, treaties)
Identify the actions taken by rulers and how those actions shaped voyages and trade
Infer perceptions of rulers from tone and content, and consider how audience and publication influenced those perceptions
Scope and focus of the chapter:
Focus on Portugal, Castile, and Aragon as the primary agents of early overseas exploration and conquest in Africa and India
Africa: West African coast, Benin, Kongo, and the slave trade dynamics
India: Calicut (Calecut) and the Indian Ocean spice trade
Acknowledges that Aztec/Inca dynamics in the Americas were influenced by Spain within a broader European competition, but those areas are treated as part of the Spanish realm rather than the Iberian rivalries analyzed here
Why the chapter emphasizes perceptions and circulation:
Perceptions of foreign rulers shaped European choices (where to trade, whom to ally with, whom to fear)
The same event could be described differently in multiple sources, revealing biases, aims, and audiences
Publication histories (e.g., Benin sources published late in European languages) affected how later readers understood foreign rulers
Key terms and figures to know:
Prince Henry the Navigator (1394–1460): funded and promoted West African coastal exploration, supported scholars, and established Atlantic posts
Zamorin of Calicut: Indian ruler whom the Portuguese encountered; central to early Indian Ocean diplomacy and conflict
Vasco da Gama (c. 1469–1524): led the first and second voyages to India (1498, 1502) and established Portuguese presence in the Indian Ocean
Pedro Álvares Cabral (c. 1467–1528): led the 1500 expedition to India, initially credited with the Calicut encounter; later voyages reinforced Portuguese pressure
Nzinga Mbemba (Afonso I) of Kongo: Congolese king who wrote to Portugal discussing slave trade impacts and seeking reforms
Nzinga Mbemba’s letters to John III (1526): highlight concerns about slave trade and regulation of Portuguese involvement
The broader implications: The chapter links early European expansion to monarchic power structures, state-backed exploration, and transregional diplomacy, showing how wealth, control of trade routes, and political legitimacy were interwoven with religious and cultural encounters. It also foreshadows the later, more coercive forms of empire-building that would dominate the subsequent centuries.
Epilogue takeaway: Be wary of teleological readings that assume inevitable European dominance. The sources show a web of interactions where African and Indian rulers also influenced the course of events, challenging a simplistic narrative of European unilateral ascent.
Connections to foundational themes: royal monopoly on trade, state sponsorship of exploration, and the political economy of early globalization; the chapter also raises ethical and methodological questions about reading perceptions and the power of published letters and chronicles.
Visualizing the sources' roles:
Decrees (Isabella, 1475; 1476): illustrate legal mechanisms for monopolizing and policing trade routes
Letters (Castile–Portugal diplomacy; Nzinga Mbemba): reveal communications, perceived sovereignty, and appeals for redress or reform
Chronicles (Palencia, 1480s): provide narrative justification for policies and battles from a Castilian perspective
Open letters and open circulation (Source 9): show how narratives could be shaped for broad audiences and affect European attitudes toward Indian rulers
In short: The chapter argues that the era’s overseas expansion was driven by a mix of political rivalry, calculated diplomacy, and strategic use of information, with perceptions of rulers playing a pivotal role in guiding actions and choices on both sides of the Atlantic and Indian Ocean.
This incident, where the King of Guinea (a traditional Portuguese trading partner) is captured by Spanish forces (from Aragon), reveals several key aspects about the relationships between European and African leaders, and between European and African people, as highlighted in the chapter's themes:
Impact of European Rivalries on African Leaders: The event clearly demonstrates how rivalries among Iberian monarchies (Portugal, Castile, Aragon) directly impacted African rulers. Despite an established trading relationship with Portugal, the King of Guinea became a target in the broader European competition. This shows that African leaders were often caught in the crossfire of European power struggles, and their existing alliances or sovereignty could be disregarded by competing European powers.
Disregard for African Sovereignty and Diplomacy by Rival Powers: While some European powers engaged in diplomacy and treaties with African rulers (like Nzinga Mbemba of Kongo), this incident suggests that such agreements could be easily undermined by rival European states. The capture implies a perception where an African king's status or existing diplomatic ties were not universally respected, especially when inter-European competition for trade and influence was at play. This highlights a hierarchical view among European powers regarding African sovereignty.
Assertion of European Power and Coercion: The forceful capture of an African king by a European power underscores the increasing willingness of European entities to use military and coercive means to achieve their objectives. This foreshadows the
Questions:
Question 1: What does this incident reveal about the relationship between European and African leaders and between European and African people?
This incident, where the King of Guinea (a traditional Portuguese trading partner) is captured by Spanish forces (from Aragon), reveals several key aspects about the relationships between European and African leaders, and between European and African people, as highlighted in the chapter's themes:
Impact of European Rivalries on African Leaders: The event clearly demonstrates how rivalries among Iberian monarchies (Portugal, Castile, Aragon) directly impacted African rulers. Despite an established trading relationship with Portugal, the King of Guinea became a target in the broader European competition. This shows that African leaders were often caught in the crossfire of European power struggles, and their existing alliances or sovereignty could be disregarded by competing European powers.
Disregard for African Sovereignty and Diplomacy by Rival Powers: While some European powers engaged in diplomacy and treaties with African rulers (like Nzinga Mbemba of Kongo), this incident suggests that such agreements could be easily undermined by rival European states. The capture implies a perception where an African king's status or existing diplomatic ties were not universally respected, especially when inter-European competition for trade and influence was at play. This highlights a hierarchical view among European powers regarding African sovereignty.
Assertion of European Power and Coercion: The forceful capture of an African king by a European power underscores the increasing willingness of European entities to use military and coercive means to achieve their objectives. This foreshadows the
escalation of conflicts that would characterize European colonial ambitions in Africa, leading to further exploitation and marginalization of African societies.
⚔ European-African Leader Relations: Diplomacy vs. Exploitation
Initial Trust and Diplomacy: The King of Guinea clearly had a history of trade and diplomatic contact with the Portuguese. His willingness to board the Spanish ships—believing they were Portuguese—shows a level of trust built through prior exchanges.
Betrayal and Deception: That trust was brutally violated when Spanish sailors (from Aragon) tricked him and his entourage into boarding, then captured them. This reveals how European rivalries (Spain vs. Portugal) spilled over into African territories, with African leaders caught in the crossfire.
Royal Recognition: Even in captivity, the King of Guinea maintained dignity and was treated with a degree of respect—he was allowed to ride a horse rather than walk among slaves, and eventually returned home. This suggests that European monarchs (like Ferdinand and Isabella) still recognized African rulers as legitimate sovereigns, at least when politically convenient.
👥 European-African People Relations: Commodification and Violence
Africans as Commodities: The capture and sale of the king’s relatives as slaves—despite royal orders to release them—shows how African people were commodified by European traders and sailors, even when those actions violated royal decrees.
Resistance and Agency: The King of Guinea’s response after returning home—capturing some of the Spaniards as hostages—demonstrates African agency and resistance. He wasn’t a passive victim but a strategic actor seeking justice.
Moral Ambiguity in Europe: The Spanish crown’s delayed response to the king’s capture (despite ordering his release) reveals how economic interests often overrode moral or diplomatic concerns. Isabella’s decree (Source 4) shows an attempt to correct the wrong, but only after significant delay and damage.
🧠 What It Reveals Overall
The relationship between European and African leaders was uneven but not entirely dismissive—African rulers were seen as political actors, but their sovereignty was often undermined by European opportunism.
The relationship between European and African people was marked by exploitation, especially in the context of trade and slavery, with Africans frequently reduced to economic assets.
The incident underscores the tension between royal policy and individual action—European monarchs might issue decrees respecting African rulers, but sailors and merchants often acted independently, driven by profit.
Questions 2: Compare and contrast Sources 5 and 6: they both talk about the King of Benin but it feels like we’re getting two very different descriptions of this leader. What differences do you see?
Source 5: Duarte Pires’s Letter (1516)
Tone & Perspective:
Respectful, diplomatic, and admiring.
Written by a Portuguese merchant directly involved in negotiations with the King of Benin.
Portrayal of the King of Benin:
Friendly and cooperative: The king is described as eager to form an alliance with Portugal and deeply interested in Christianity.
Open and generous: He welcomes Portuguese priests, dines with them, and even allows his son and nobles to convert.
Strategic and thoughtful: He delays formal religious conversion until after his war, showing political savvy.
Civilized and honorable: The king is portrayed as a ruler with courtly manners and a desire to please the Portuguese crown.
Purpose of the Source:
To report diplomatic success and reassure King Manuel V of Portugal that Benin is receptive to Portuguese influence.
📜 Source 6: Report by an Unknown Portuguese Pilot (~1540)
Tone & Perspective:
Exoticizing, sensational, and somewhat condescending.
Written for a European audience, later published in Italian by Ramusio.
Portrayal of the King of Benin:
Mystical and authoritarian: The king is described as being worshipped like a divine figure, with subjects kneeling and speaking from a distance.
Secretive and ritualistic: He supposedly never eats in public to maintain a supernatural image.
Gruesome customs: The report describes a ritual where favored courtiers voluntarily die alongside the king and are buried with him.
Alien and “other”: The king is framed as part of a culture that is strange and primitive from a European point of view.
Purpose of the Source:
To entertain and inform European readers with tales of exotic lands, reinforcing stereotypes and colonial narratives
Question 3: Source 7: According to King Nzinga of Kongo, how did European traders disrupt the economic, social, and political situation in Kongo?
💰 Economic Disruption
Loss of control over trade: Nzinga complains that Portuguese merchants flood Kongo with goods, undermining the king’s ability to regulate commerce.
Undermining royal authority: Vassals and nobles gain access to European goods independently, making them less reliant on the king and weakening his economic leverage.
Unregulated slave trade: Merchants prioritize profit over legality, buying enslaved people without verifying their status—often acquiring free citizens and nobles.
🧑🤝🧑 Social Disruption
Breakdown of social hierarchy: The widespread availability of European goods leads to a shift in power dynamics, with commoners gaining material wealth and status outside traditional structures.
Kidnapping and corruption: Nzinga describes how “thieves and men of bad conscience” abduct free people—including nobles and even royal relatives—to sell them to Europeans.
Loss of population: The kingdom is being “completely depopulated,” as people are taken and sold into slavery, eroding the social fabric.
👑 Political Disruption
Erosion of royal authority: Nzinga’s decrees to regulate trade are ignored, and Portuguese traders bypass his officials, undermining his governance.
Diplomatic strain: Nzinga appeals to the Portuguese king as a fellow Christian monarch, but his pleas are met with limited action, revealing a power imbalance.
Legal chaos: Nzinga tries to enforce laws requiring verification of a person’s status before sale, but traders resist, leading to conflict and injustice.
🧠 Nzinga’s Perspective
Nzinga’s letters are not just complaints—they’re strategic diplomatic appeals. He positions himself as a Christian ally, asking for priests and teachers instead of merchants and goods. His tone is respectful but urgent, showing both his frustration and his hope that Portugal will act responsibly.
Question 4: Compare and contrast “The Problem” section versus Sources 8 and 9: Why did Portugal bombard the Indian city of Calicut? What different potential reasons do we see in the sources compared to “The Problem” section of the chapter?
“The Problem” Section (Editor’s Overview)
Purpose of Bombardment:
Presents Portugal’s actions in Calicut as part of a broader strategic failure in diplomacy and trade.
Emphasizes that Vasco da Gama and Cabral failed to secure a treaty with the Zamorin (King of Calicut), leading to open warfare.
Frames the bombardment as a reaction to rejection, not necessarily as an aggressive or premeditated act.
Suggests that the Zamorin’s resistance shaped Portuguese actions, portraying him as a powerful and influential ruler.
Tone:
Neutral and analytical.
Focuses on cause and effect, not moral judgment.
Aims to show how rivalries and misunderstandings shaped overseas expansion.
📜 Source 8: Gaspar Correa’s History of India (1540s)
Purpose of Bombardment:
Portrays da Gama’s actions as vengeful and militaristic.
Emphasizes Portuguese frustration with the Zamorin’s refusal to cooperate and past “treachery.”
Describes da Gama’s rage and impatience, leading to a full-scale bombardment of Calicut.
Includes vivid details of destruction and violence, showing the Portuguese as retaliatory and punitive.
Tone:
Dramatic and partisan.
Clearly favors Portuguese interests and justifies their aggression.
Frames da Gama as a heroic enforcer of royal will.
📜 Source 9: “Letter of the King of Portugal” (Printed 1505)
Purpose of Bombardment:
Justifies the attack as a response to betrayal—specifically, the killing of Portuguese merchants and destruction of their trading post.
Claims the King of Calicut failed to make amends, prompting retaliation.
Describes the bombardment as a demonstration of Portuguese power, meant to impress rivals like Spain and Venice.
Highlights the economic motive: controlling spice trade and punishing those who interfered.
Tone:
Propagandistic and self-congratulatory.
Intended to impress European readers and reinforce Portugal’s dominance.
Frames the bombardment as righteous and necessary.
The “Problem” section offers a balanced overview, while Sources 8 and 9 reflect Portuguese perspectives that justify violence and elevate their own role. These differences underscore how historical memory is shaped by motive and audience—what looks like diplomacy in one account becomes vengeance in another.